Courtroom-Style Multi-Agent Debate with Progressive RAG and Role-Switching for Controversial Claim Verification
Masnun Nuha Chowdhury, Nusrat Jahan Beg, Umme Hunny Khan, Syed Rifat Raiyan, Md Kamrul Hasan, Hasan Mahmud · Mar 30, 2026 · Citations: 0
How to use this page
Moderate trustUse this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Best use
Background context only
What to verify
Validate the exact study setup in the full paper before operational use.
Evidence quality
Moderate
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable for high-stakes claim verification due to hallucinations and shallow reasoning. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and multi-agent debate (MAD) address this, they are limited by one-pass retrieval and unstructured debate dynamics. We propose a courtroom-style multi-agent framework, PROClaim, that reformulates verification as a structured, adversarial deliberation. Our approach integrates specialized roles (e.g., Plaintiff, Defense, Judge) with Progressive RAG (P-RAG) to dynamically expand and refine the evidence pool during the debate. Furthermore, we employ evidence negotiation, self-reflection, and heterogeneous multi-judge aggregation to enforce calibration, robustness, and diversity. In zero-shot evaluations on the Check-COVID benchmark, PROClaim achieves 81.7% accuracy, outperforming standard multi-agent debate by 10.0 percentage points, with P-RAG driving the primary performance gains (+7.5 pp). We ultimately demonstrate that structural deliberation and model heterogeneity effectively mitigate systematic biases, providing a robust foundation for reliable claim verification. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mnc13/PROClaim.